Emails Reveal Epstein Invited to Dem Fundraiser To ‘Get To Know’ Hakeem Jeffries
House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, a Republican from Kentucky, accused House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries’ campaign on Tuesday of “soliciting money from Jeffrey Epstein.”
Citing a 2013 email from a political consulting firm inviting the infamous pedophile to a Democratic Party dinner and to “get to know” Jeffries, the Kentucky Republican is spearheading the oversight panel’s inquiry into Epstein.
“Democrat fundraisers invited Epstein to attend an event, or meet privately with Hakeem Jeffries as part of their 2013 effort to win a majority. So, Hakeem Jeffries’ campaign solicited money from Jeffrey Epstein. That’s what we found in the last document batch,” Comer said on the House floor.
On May 7, 2013, Lisa Rossi, a partner at the New York City-based consulting firm Dynamic SRG, sent Epstein an email with the subject line, “Rising Star.”
Lesley Groff, Epstein’s former executive assistant, also forwarded the email to Epstein.
“Dear Jeffrey,” the message stated. “We are thrilled to announce that we are working with Congressman Hakeem Jeffries, one of the rising stars in the New York Congressional delegation.
“Sometimes referred to as ‘Brooklyn’s Barack’, he is a staunch supporter of President Obama and a progressive voice for the people of New York City.”
The firm’s pitch to Epstein included a video and article touting the Brooklyn Democrat’s work during his first year in Congress.
“Hakeem is committed to electing a Democratic majority in 2014 and is encouraging his friends to participate in the DCCC/DSCC fundraising dinner with President Obama this coming Monday night,” the email continued. “Shoot us an email or give us a call at [the firm’s phone number] if you would like to get involved with the dinner, or would like to get an opportunity to get to know Hakeem better.”
About five years after Epstein entered a guilty plea to charges of soliciting prostitutes and soliciting prostitution from a minor in Florida in 2008, the invitation was sent.
In the 1990s and 2000s, Epstein gave tens of thousands of dollars to a number of Democrats. He passed away in a Manhattan jail cell in 2019 while awaiting trial on federal child sex trafficking allegations.
Epstein did not appear to have donated to Jeffries, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, or the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee at the time the email was sent, according to Federal Election Commission records.
As part of their extensive Epstein investigation, Republicans in the House Oversight Committee published over 20,000 documents last week, including the email.
This comes as the U.S. Senate formally enacted legislation compelling the Justice Department to provide additional details regarding the case it developed against the late convicted sexual offender Jeffrey Epstein
The House decisively cleared the bill on Tuesday, and senators had agreed to automatically pass it as soon as it was received.
President Donald Trump has stated that he will sign it, and it is currently on his desk. This is true even though Speaker Mike Johnson pushed for last-minute revisions to the House-passed plan and hinted that he could urge Trump to veto it.
The Justice Department will have 30 days to make the papers publicly available with redactions to safeguard Epstein’s victims, assuming Trump follows through.
On Tuesday, Speaker Mike Johnson discussed House Republicans’ efforts to deliver maximum transparency regarding the Epstein files and ensure justice for victims of Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes.
“The truth is, the biggest proponents of this discharge petition were never actually interested in transparency or ensuring justice or protecting victims of this unspeakable tragedy, the Epstein evils. And how do we know that? Because the Democrats had every one of the Epstein files in their possession for the four long years of the Biden Administration,” Johnson said.
“The Biden Department of Justice had the files the entire time, and not a single one of the people who were so loud and animated right now ever said anything about it for all those four years,” he said.
“For four long years under the previous administration of the Biden-Harris Administration, Democrats insisted there was no border crisis. Remember, they told you that that wasn’t a problem at all. They dismissed inflation as transitory. That’s what they told us. They told the American people not to believe what we could all see with our own eyes, that there was an obvious mental and physical decline on the part of President Biden individually,” Johnson said.
Maxine Waters Tried to Humiliate Sen. John Kennedy
Maxine Waters Tried to Humiliate Sen. John Kennedy — His Comeback Shut Her Down Instantly
In a dramatic Senate Banking Committee hearing that captivated the nation, Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana confronted Congresswoman Maxine Waters with a series of pointed questions and damning evidence, leaving her visibly shaken and struggling to maintain her composure. What was intended to be a routine discussion on financial regulations quickly escalated into a high-stakes showdown that exposed the fragility of unchecked political power.
The hearing began with Waters, a seasoned lawmaker known for her fierce advocacy and commanding presence, entering the room with the confidence of a queen. For over three decades, she had been a titan of Washington’s financial policy, adept at dismantling opponents with her sharp rhetoric. However, unbeknownst to her, Kennedy had spent weeks preparing for this moment, armed with a deep understanding of constitutional law and a folder filled with evidence that would soon turn the tide.
As the hearing commenced, Waters attempted to assert her dominance by questioning Kennedy’s qualifications. “Did your time in law school cover banking policy or were you too busy chasing folksy anecdotes?” she asked, her tone dripping with condescension. This calculated move was designed to put him on the defensive, but Kennedy remained unfazed, a faint smile playing on his lips.
Kennedy responded not with indignation but with a measured inquiry that would set the tone for the rest of the hearing. He pulled out his well-worn pocket Constitution and posed a critical question: “What specific constitutional authority gives Congress the power to regulate every corner of American banking?” This question landed like a grenade, momentarily cracking Waters’s confident facade.
As the tension in the room escalated, Kennedy continued to press Waters on the limits of federal power. He challenged her to justify the existence of agencies like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which she had long championed. His calm demeanor contrasted sharply with Waters’s increasingly defensive responses, revealing a vulnerability she had not anticipated.
With the audience on the edge of their seats, Kennedy shifted gears, opening his folder to reveal evidence of potential conflicts of interest involving Waters and OneUnited Bank. He disclosed that Waters had arranged a meeting with Treasury officials to discuss the bank during a time when her husband held a significant stake in it. “Your husband owned $350,000 worth of stock in OneUnited Bank. After that meeting, the bank received $12 million in taxpayer bailout funds,” Kennedy stated, his tone steady but laced with accusation.
Waters’s expression changed as she realized the implications of Kennedy’s revelations. She attempted to deflect, insisting that her actions were aimed at helping minority-owned banks, but Kennedy was relentless. He pointed out the stark contrast between her professed commitment to public service and the financial benefits her family had reaped from her political influence.As the hearing progressed, it became clear that Waters was losing control of the narrative. Kennedy’s methodical approach and mastery of constitutional principles dismantled her authority piece by piece. He highlighted the CFPB’s structure and its implications for the separation of powers, questioning how an unelected agency could wield such authority without accountability.
